Living United for Change in Arizona filed a civil rights lawsuit Wednesday in Maricopa County Superior Court seeking to block a provision of the voter-approved Secure the Border Act that criminalizes unlawful border crossing. The group argued the law, which allows state and local authorities to arrest migrants and authorizes judges to issue deportation orders, violates constitutional rights, according to court filings and statements from the plaintiffs.
The lawsuit, filed April 2, 2025, challenges a provision of Proposition 314, known as the Secure the Border Act, that criminalizes unlawful crossing of the Arizona–Mexico border outside official ports of entry. It also authorizes state and local law enforcement officers to arrest migrants suspected of violating this offense and empowers Arizona judges to issue deportation orders against those convicted who refuse to leave the country voluntarily, according to court filings and statements from plaintiffs.
The law, approved by Arizona voters in November 2024 with about 63% support, classifies such crossings as a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail.
Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA), a progressive immigrant-rights and political advocacy group formed in response to Arizona’s 2010 SB 1070 immigration law, is the lead plaintiff in the suit. LUCHA is represented by attorney James Barton, who has publicly argued that Proposition 314 is “plainly unconstitutional” on several grounds. The group contends the law violates the Arizona Constitution’s Revenue Source Rule, which requires ballot measures that result in government spending to identify a specific funding source. Barton and LUCHA argue that because the Secure the Border Act will cost millions of dollars for arrests, prosecutions, detentions, and court proceedings without specifying a dedicated funding mechanism, it is unconstitutional and unenforceable under state law.
The complaint further alleges that the law improperly delegates legislative authority and violates the separation of powers clause of the Arizona Constitution. LUCHA asserts that Proposition 314 intrudes on judicial powers by defining probable cause for arrests, a determination traditionally reserved for the courts. The lawsuit also challenges a clause making enforcement contingent on legal developments surrounding Texas’s SB 4 law or similar legislation, arguing this constitutes an unlawful delegation of Arizona’s lawmaking authority to external entities.
In addition to the criminalization of unlawful border crossing, the lawsuit targets provisions mandating immigration-status verification for welfare programs and employment status verification. LUCHA frames these measures as part of a broader anti-immigrant framework embedded in the Secure the Border Act. The group asserts that lawmakers and measure sponsors “deceived” voters by failing to disclose or identify the substantial costs and funding sources associated with the law.
Proposition 314 was drafted and championed by Republican lawmakers as a response to what they described as harms caused by an “unsecured border.” The measure passed with a 25-point margin in the 2024 general election. Prior to the vote, a separate legal challenge sought to remove the proposition from the ballot under Arizona’s single-subject rule. However, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Minder rejected that challenge in July 2024, ruling that all provisions related to “responses to harms related to an unsecured border” and thus satisfied the constitutional requirement.
Following the April 2025 lawsuit, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Michael Valenzuela issued a 10-page ruling in October 2025 dismissing all counts in the case. The judge found that some claims were not ripe for review because certain provisions were not yet enforceable and determined that LUCHA lacked standing on several separation-of-powers and legislative-delegation issues. On the Revenue Source Rule claim, Valenzuela ruled that the law’s SAVE Provision, which requires participation in a federal immigration verification program, did not impose costs on state or local agencies and therefore did not violate the funding requirement. The court dismissed the case with prejudice, making the decision final at the trial-court level.
As a result, Proposition 314 stands as enacted by voters, though some sections remain unenforceable until triggered by developments involving similar laws in Texas or other states. LUCHA has indicated it may pursue further legal action following the dismissal. The Secure the Border Act continues to be a significant element of Arizona’s immigration enforcement strategy, reflecting ongoing political and legal debates over border security and immigrant rights in the state.
Comments are closed.